50mm 1.2

[RLPhoto]

This might Help.

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review

[bluenoser1993]

Thanks Ramon, I enjoyed the review of the 50.  I love what the 50 can do, and I am drawn to it even though I know I'll make a mess of using it for a while.  I also tend to agree with Random's remarks about a 35 mm.  As much as I'd love to get into FF, I'll be using the 7D for a good while yet.  I'm guessing until the next greatest comes out and there are a lot of used 5D3's on the market.  I know the 70 end of my 2.8 zoom is nothing like the 50 1.2, but it comes close to covering the focal length at reasonable light levels.  The 35 would fit into my bag where there is a complete void and I think will be a little more versatile on my 7D.  I thought I had it figured out before a good deal came along.

[7enderbender]

Here is one with a similar theme shot with the 1.2 at 2.2 on a 5DII.

1.2 has a much softer bokeh than 1.8.  Truly one of my dream lenses.  Hmmm... is 1.2L really better than 1.4 open wide?  If so, I'd rather save more for this lens.

That's for you to decide I suppose. Wide open the 1.2 is better in my view in that it is slightly sharper and the background blur is even softer. What more significant for my taste is that contrast is the big winner. And build quality. But there are downsides to that. You get more contrast but also more chromatic aberration. Also, the 1.4 is slightly sharper when stopped down in the 2.8 to 4 range. So it is also a question how you would use the lens for the most part. It is clearly designed in my opinion for people who like to shoot at wide apertures. Here I think it beats everything else on the market. And it is more than just usable stopped down further. So yes, for my taste and usage it was really better than my 1.4. And it's also my favorite focal length so it made sense. Is it an absolutely must have? No, absolutely not. The 1.4 is a fabulous lens as well and has served we very well over many years in it's FD version on my film cameras. Actually, if the EF 1.4 was as well build as the FD 1.4 I may have not bought the 1.2. About 50% of that decision was due to build quality.

[theqspeaks]

I also tend to agree with Random's remarks about a 35 mm.  As much as I'd love to get into FF, I'll be using the 7D for a good while yet.

Sorry to continue the hijacking of this thread..., but if you're going crop for a while, why look at the super expensive Canon 35L or even the new Sigma 35mm when there's the crop sensor Sigma 30mm 1.4?  Not a perfect lens, but the Sigma 30mm is about half the price of the Sigma 35mm and a third the price of the Canon 35L.  The bokeh is often nice, it's pretty sharp, and it's much smaller than the Canon 35L. 

Here are some pics I've taken with it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6748719075/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6665006571/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6714226133/#lightbox/ (hand held at 1/10s)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6714217545/#
And some more: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma+30mm&w=83261600%40N00&ss=2&s=int

[verysimplejason]

Here is one with a similar theme shot with the 1.2 at 2.2 on a 5DII.

1.2 has a much softer bokeh than 1.8.  Truly one of my dream lenses.  Hmmm... is 1.2L really better than 1.4 open wide?  If so, I'd rather save more for this lens.

That's for you to decide I suppose. Wide open the 1.2 is better in my view in that it is slightly sharper and the background blur is even softer. What more significant for my taste is that contrast is the big winner. And build quality. But there are downsides to that. You get more contrast but also more chromatic aberration. Also, the 1.4 is slightly sharper when stopped down in the 2.8 to 4 range. So it is also a question how you would use the lens for the most part. It is clearly designed in my opinion for people who like to shoot at wide apertures. Here I think it beats everything else on the market. And it is more than just usable stopped down further. So yes, for my taste and usage it was really better than my 1.4. And it's also my favorite focal length so it made sense. Is it an absolutely must have? No, absolutely not. The 1.4 is a fabulous lens as well and has served we very well over many years in it's FD version on my film cameras. Actually, if the EF 1.4 was as well build as the FD 1.4 I may have not bought the 1.2. About 50% of that decision was due to build quality.

That got me into thinking.  As I'm going FF next year, 50mm seems isn't sufficient for me.  Sorry ops for hijacking the thread but since somebody with more experience is giving an advice, I want further advice from him.  I've been thinking of an 85mm F1.8 or 100mm F2.  Please note however that I already have the 100mm macro F2.8.  Is the macro bokeh on FF comparable to those previous 2?

[Mike2000]

On my site there are plenty of images taken with 5d2 and 50 1.2. Wonderful lens, my most used one.